JALDI

Jaldi-Vidhi

Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal

Case details and hearing information from the Constitution Bench Pendency Portal.

576

Message
show

Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal

This case deals with the Aligarh Muslim University's status as a "minority educational institute".

Petitioners Arguments
That administrative control of the University should not have a bearing on its minority status. Governmental control over the university, being merely regulatory, does not destroy the minority character of the institution (as held in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State Of Karnataka [(2002) 8 SCC 481] ). That Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College (MAO) and Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) are the same entity and the incorporation of MAO into AMU is merely superficial. That the mere fact that the college’s expansion into a university was through an Act of the legislature should not have any effect on its minority character. That the Parliament was competent to enact the 1981 Amendment as the AMU is a subject under the Union List (Entry 63 of List I, VII schedule ), and that within prescribed limits, the legislature had the power to make both prospective and retrospective laws. The Amendment Act was introduced in exercise of this power. That the legislature was competent to change the basis of a judicial decision rendering a judgement ineffective (as held in Sri Prithvi Cotton Mills Limited v. Broach Borough Municipality Bakhtawar Trust [(1969) 2 SCC 283 ]. The basis of the decision in Azeez Basha was that it was not established by the minority, and the Amendment Act changed that by inserting s. 2(l). Further, the Amendment Act was a “retrospective declaration” of historical facts that clarified previous ambiguities.
Responders Arguments
That the amendments made to the Act in 1981 were a “brazen overruling” of the judgement in Azeez Basha v. Union of India , and the Legislature was not permitted to directly overrule the judgment of a court. That the finding in Azeez Basha that Muslims had not established AMU cannot be changed by any declaratory statute (referring to the inclusion of “established by the Muslims of India”). That the word “establish” here meant to “bring into existence” as understood in Article 26(a) and 28(2) , which the Muslim minority did not satisfy as the University was brought into existence through an Act of the Parliament, with governmental control. While the judgement in T.M.A. Pai talks about administrative control not impacting the minority character of an institution, it does not address the issue of establishment, and its implication on minority status. Azeez Basha addresses this, and not being contrary to anything stated in T.M.A Pai in this regard, is binding.
Last Listed On
2024-11-08
Start Date
2019-02-12
End Date
2024-11-08
Card Stage Date
2024-11-08
Review Petition No
C. A. No. 2286/2006
Case Status
Archive
Bench Status
Constituted
Subject Matter
Constitution
Comment
NA
Pendency
5 years, 8 months, 27 days
Disposal Time
5 years, 8 months, 27 days

7 Judge Bench

Judgment delivered

Consider As Stage Of Pendency
false

Date of institution of case

Date of reference to 7 Judge Bench

Judgement pronounced

In 1920, Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) was established through an eponymous central legislation, primarily for the education of Muslims . The assets of the pre-existent Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College (MAO) and the Muslim University Association were transferred to the new AMU and the organisations themselves were dissolved. The 1920 Act provided that only Muslims could be members of the university court (the supreme governing body of the university). Amendments were made in 1951 and 1965 which removed this restriction and allowed non-Muslims to become members of the university court. In 1968, The Supreme Court in Azeez Basha v. Union of India [AIR 1968 SC 662] held that, to qualify as a minority institution under Art. 30 , the institution has to be both established and administered by a minority. AMU was not a minority institution as it was established by an Act of the legislature. In 1981, an Amendment Act was passed, which among other things, retrospectively redefined the term “University” under Section 2(l) of the Aligarh Muslim University Act , 1920 to mean “the educational institution of their choice established by the Muslims of India, which originated as the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College, Aligarh, and which was subsequently incorporated as the Aligarh Muslim University”. It also inserted Section 5(2)(c) which stated that the University was empowered to specifically promote educational and cultural advancement of Muslims. In 2005, AMU decided to reserve 50% seats of their post-graduate medical courses for Muslim candidates. In reply to several written petitions that were filed against this, the Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that AMU was not a minority institution and found the reservation of 50% seats to be unconstitutional. This was appealed against, in front of a division bench of the Allahabad High Court (unsuccessfully) and then in front of a 3 judge bench of the Supreme Court, which ruled that a larger bench had to be constituted to evaluate the correctness of the principles set out in Azeez Basha and address relevant questions regarding minority institutions.

What are the indicia for treating an educational institution as a minority educational institution? Is the Aligarh Muslim University a “minority educational institution”, and consequently, can it reserve 50% (or any number) of its seats for Muslim students? Would an institution be regarded as a minority educational institution because it was established by a person(s) belonging to a religious or linguistic minority or its being administered by a person(s) belonging to a religious or linguistic minority? Is the decision in Azeez Basha v. Union of India (AIR 1968 SC 662) legally correct?

Section 2(l) and Section 5(2)(c) of the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920

The Supreme Court in its referral order observed that the question regarding the parameters that an institution had to fulfill to be recognised as a “minority institution” had been referred to a seven judge bench of the Supreme Court earlier, but had not been authoritatively answered. Further, the principle that to avail protection under Art. 30 , an institution had to mandatorily be established by the minority (a textual reading of Art. 30) as propounded in Azeez Basha required re-evaluation. The decision of the Court in Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2005) 5 SCC 420] and the amendment of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 made in the year 2010 also required a more authoritative pronouncement.

S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, [AIR 1968 SC 662]

Redefining a Right

Redefining a Right
Source Of Info
Frontline
Date Of Fr
2002-11-22

Judgment on the Minority Character of AMU: A Classical Case of Fallacious Legal Reasoning

Judgment on the Minority Character of AMU: A Classical Case of Fallacious Legal Reasoning
Source Of Info
Live Law
Date Of Fr
2016-01-20

The Many Layers of Aligarh Muslim University’s ‘Minority Status’

The Many Layers of Aligarh Muslim University’s ‘Minority Status’
Source Of Info
The Quint
Date Of Fr
2018-07-09